Table 2. Results of French and German case studies. Support for SL is indicated as none (0), little (+), or strong (++). SH: Stakeholders; WG WFD = Working Group for the implementation of the WFD in the International Elbe river basin district; WA = water authority.

International level as a means to facilitate intra-national discussion.
International boundary less relevant. SH were not sure of process
importance.

Process boundary had the potential to be rather strong, but some
SH doubted whether it would succeed there.

The boundary of the process was initially defined from the temporal aspect
to raise awareness of the Dordogne river basin. Strong uniqueness of the process
and lack of similar alternative processes. Weakness of process: the decision-making structure was not directly involved in the Charter process.

The process boundary was initially very strong. Thus, the process faltered
with the increasing awareness of the role of the (non-participating) nationally
responsible authority. The process boundary had to be expanded to include actors
at the national level, which was only achieved by excluding other participants
from the process.

4) Content management (indicator: information flow)

SL: 0

SL: +

SL: ++

SL: +

Information flow mainly between WA. SH felt they had not been sufficiently
informed.

Information flow mainly from WA to SH, but SH acknowledged the need to be
informed, and appreciated it.

Information flow ensured an equal knowledge base for all actors.

Strong, also included external expertise. Information flow concerning the
nature and limitations of negotiation outcomes was perhaps insufficient

Very low diversity in formalized meetings. Informal interaction and
discussion between different actors were also established.

So far very low: mainly presentations and questions. Establishment of pilot
projects to improve diversity and different forms of collaboration.

Limited to exchange of different SH groups with EPIDOR and a
strongly formalized one-time interaction between all SH
groups.

Diversity of interaction was identified as positive for SL, in particular
for improving relations between the hydropower company and the local fishermen.

SUMMARY CONCERNING SL

No SL indicated at time of case study (2003–2004)

Indicators showed SL was enabled and could be improved (see diversity of
interaction and information flow). If scepticism of SH can be turned into trust
in the process, it will be a major success of and for SL.

The ambivalence of indicators of SL point toward limitations of SL in the
process. Although the learning of different actors facilitated and mediated by
EPIDOR was probably achieved, the lack of implementation indicates a lack of
commitment of all SH—something that SL claims to achieve through direct
multi-party interaction.

SL occurred during the process, but the impact was low due to the weak
nature of outcome. The process was finally halted because of this.

IMPACT OF SPATIAL MISFIT

Independence of different actors, who did not ask for SL. The ICPE, as
coordinating body, supported exchange through logistical and administrative
support to WA. No successful activity to engage different SH in activities at the
international level.

The close spatial fit between the participatory and decision-making
institutions was deliberately set up so that SH knew who to contact in case
of a complaint.

The spatial independence of SH was reduced by the activities of EPIDOR. The
misfit between the river basin and the spatial areas covered by the different WA,
allowed the WA to limit their engagement as they were not directly
concerned.

Spatial misfit between decision-making institutions and participatory
institutions (i.e., the legal responsibility lies with the national level, whereas the
problem was identified at the local level) hindered further SL because SH chose not
to interact any longer if their responsibilities were insufficient.